'What they did to me was wrong?': Fight for compensation over Girls Gone Wild image

Bill Rankin

Fourteen-year-old Lindsey Boyd was walking down the strip in Florida, USA, when two men, one holding a video camera, asked her to expose her breasts.

She complied and was compensated, as were many who flashed their breasts during spring break in 2000, with a cheap beaded necklace.

Video of the Powder Springs, Georgia, middle schooler was sold for the Girls Gone Wild, College Girls Exposed series. Not only would a five-second clip of Lindsey exposing herself be on the video, a photo of her baring her breasts would be on the cover of the DVD and displayed in commercials in a US national advertising campaign. (On the cover, Lindsey's breasts were blocked out with the instructions "Get Educated!")

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Lindsey, who is now 26-year-old Lindsey Bullard of Cartersville, Georgia, can sue the production companies that bought the video of her and put it in the Girls Gone Wild video. Bullard is seeking unspecified damages from the companies, saying they misappropriated her image for commercial purposes.

The case could set an important precedent for the protection of minors whose images are captured and then distributed across the digital world.

"The expectation of privacy has changed significantly in the digital age," said Atlanta lawyer Gerry Weber, an expert on First Amendment law. "Everybody's got a camera phone, and people are photographing and videotaping each other in public places all the time. Once the image is captured, the possibility of it being widely distributed can certainly happen, particularly if it's provocative." A key issue in the case, Weber said, is whether a minor has the legal capacity to consent to being photographed.

Advertisement

What happened in 2000, Bullard said last week, was a poor decision made in the moment by a teenager who had no clue what could happen next.

"What they did to me - using my image as advertisement - was wrong," she said. "They did not have my consent. It was exploitation. If I would have known that the whole world was going to see it I definitely would have thought more about it and would not have done it. ... There should be laws against it to protect others from this."

You will now receive updates fromBreaking News Alert

Breaking News Alert

In a court filing, Carr said Bullard "placed no restrictions - indeed, never expressed any concern for — how the image of her exposing her breasts would be used".

"Now that spring break is over, [Bullard] has had second thoughts about her decision to expose her breasts for the video camera, but that choice was hers alone."

Bullard said that by the time she got to high school, fellow students, teachers and coaches had seen her photo in the Girls Gone Wild advertising campaign.

"It didn't make it easy going to school - it was pretty rough, in fact," said Bullard, a hairstylist who is married with a three-week-old daughter. "I was pinpointed as a bad girl, as the problem girl." Bullard's suit, filed in 2004, has been overseen by Chief US District Judge Julie Carnes in Atlanta.

In an August 27 order, Carnes said she could not decide whether the case should go to trial. She asked the Georgia Supreme Court to give her some answers.

"Unfortunately, the very scant Georgia law on this subject provides no clear answer as to whether [Bullard] has a viable claim," Carnes wrote. "... It is not at all clear that the law has caught up with this kind of vulgar exploitation of a young girl." Among the questions Carnes wants the state Supreme Court to answer: Can Bullard's consent to being videotaped be rendered invalid because she was a minor at the time? In the order, Carnes also made it clear what she thinks of the entire matter.

"That [Bullard] behaved foolishly and recklessly by baring herself to a stranger with a camera is an obvious fact," Carnes wrote. "Yet, fourteen-year-old middle-schoolers sometimes do stupid things, with little thought for future consequences." Carnes recognised that Bullard made no request to "be compensated for her momentary lack of common sense". The video companies, Carnes said, "exploited that momentary foolishness for their own commercial gain, with no concern for the humiliation that could befall [Bullard] when her image was placed on the cover of their video."